The EU has a haphazard record on technical regulation, but their requirement for alternative app stores is decent IMO. Apple and Google have a chequered histor

The EU has a haphazard record on technical regulation, but their requirement for alternative app stores is decent IMO. Apple and Google have a chequered history of cherry-picking which social networking apps are allowed on their platform, based on content in those apps. Some apps may, for cultural reasons, have the lion's share of toxic content, such is the nature of a free society where cultures are allowed to differ. But users should be free to decide what apps they consider "toxic," because peoples' definitions of "toxic" differ. Free speech is a first amendment right because it's a fundamental pre-requisite of a free society. Why should two corporates in California (subject to all the political biases that exist in that state) be gatekeepers of freedom of expression and association for the rest of the world? If a corporate chooses what opinions and discussions are "appropriate" for us, then our thoughts and worldviews are subtly shaped by the whims of that corporate. It wouldn't be so bad if there were multiple corporates who differentiated their approach, but unfortunately we've seen Big Tech acting in concert on certain issues (certain apps that were banned), and that should concern us all. They may suppress rightwing views today, but we can't predict what Big Tech will deny us access to tomorrow. Tomorrow's target might be something we value (but is inconvenient for the Big Tech establishment) If you're on the left-hand side of politics, try to imagine a world where two companies in Wyoming controlled your access to information and discussion. And an app was banned if it was seen to be too leftwing... too "risky" and "disruptive" to "public order?" I understand Apple's arguments about the integrity of its ecosystem, and for what it's worth, I value Apple's vertically-integrated and curated approach. But I lost a lot of faith in Apple when they started cherry-picking social networks. Now I recognise that users need a side-channel so they can choose to sacrifice a degree of safety in order to retain access to free speech. Reading Apple's announcement doesn't fill me with confidence though. "Authorization for marketplace developers — to ensure marketplace developers commit to ongoing requirements that help protect users and developers." Inevitably, this means that if a developer dares to build a marketplace that hosts a free speech app, Apple can simply refuse to allow the marketplace to run on their phones. Big Tech will not relinquish control without a fight.